1 of 2 3.AO.39.2021.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.39 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.332 OF 2021 Dr..Maya V.Mulchandani Appellant versus The Mumbai Municipal Corporation and another Respondents _______ Mr.Sanket Mungale for Appellant. Ms.S.V.Tondwalkar i/by Ms.Komal Punjabi for Respondent-MCGM. _______ CORAM : AARTI SATHE, J. DATE : 6th October 2026 P.C. 1. This Appeal from Order filed under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure (`CPC’) read with Section 104 has been filed against the impugned order dated 6th March 2020 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai (`Trial Court’) in Notice of Motion No.3071 of 2012 in L.C.Suit No.4620 of 2012 whereby the Trial Court dismissed the Notice of Motion filed by the Appellant. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant has fairly submitted today that the trial before the Trial Court has proceeded and it is at the stage of evidence and cross-examination of DW-2. 3. Considering the fact that the trial has advanced to final stage and final hearing is likely to take place soon, this Court is of the view that, without delving into the merits of the matter and without forming any view as far as challenge in the Appeal from Order is concerned, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the M.S.Thatte MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Digitally signed by MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Date: 2026.10.06 17:43:06 +0530 2 of 2 3.AO.39.2021.DOC L.C.Suit No.4620 of 2012 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of this order. 4. Needless to clarify that this Court has not expressed any prima facie view or dealt with merits of the matter. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. 5. Appeal from Order is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. Interim Application does not survive and stands disposed of as such. 6. If in the event an order is passed against the Appellant in the suit, such order be not acted upon for two weeks. (AARTI SATHE, J.) M.S.Thatte